Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38327524›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2024

Clinical benefit analysis of PD-1 inhibitors in patients with advanced, recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

Yun-Zi Wang, Ji-Sheng Wang, Jiang Du, Xue-Li Tang, Jing-Ping Xiao

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yun-Zi WangDepartment of Pathology, Sichuan Science City Hospital, Mianyang, Sichuan, China.
Ji-Sheng WangDepartment of Pharmacy, The Third Hospital of Mianyang, Sichuan Mental Health Center, Mianyang, Sichuan, China.
Jiang DuDepartment of General Surgery, Sichuan Science City Hospital, Sichuan, China.
Xue-Li TangDepartment of Science and Technology, The Third Hospital of Mianyang, Sichuan Mental Health Center, Mianyang, Sichuan, China.
Jing-Ping XiaoDepartment of Pharmacy, The Third Hospital of Mianyang, Sichuan Mental Health Center, Mianyang, Sichuan, China.
Sichuan Mianyang 404 Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) in patients with advanced, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer (ARMCC) and identify the population that may benefit the most. Methods: We conducted a search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Collaboration Library from their inception to September 2023. We extracted and analyzed the results related to the efficacy and safety of PD-1 in patients with ARMCC. The primary endpoints included the overall objective response rate (ORR) and adverse events (AEs), while the secondary endpoints encompassed the 1-year overall survival (OS) rate, 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate, as well as OS and PFS. We used a random effects model to conduct a meta-analysis on single-group rates, and the Mantel-Haenszel method was utilized to compare the ORR and the incidence of AEs. Results: Our study included a total of 21 trials involving 2,097 patients. The ORR of the combination of PD-1 inhibitors with chemotherapy was 56.36%, the combination of PD-1 inhibitors with anti-angiogenic agents was 38.72%, the combination of PD-1 inhibitors with Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 inhibitors was 25.60%, and PD-1 inhibitor monotherapy was 15.99%. The subgroup analysis showed that the group of patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) exhibited a significantly higher ORR compared to the non-SCC group in patients who received PD-1 inhibitors combined with other anti-tumor drugs (Odds Ratio =2.43, P=0.002). Additionally, the group of patients with a programmed death-ligand 1 combined positive score (PD-L1 CPS) ≥1 exhibited a significantly higher ORR compared to the PD-L1 CPS <1 group in patients who received PD-1 inhibitor monotherapy (OR=4.14, P=0.02). PD-1 inhibitor monotherapy or PD-1 inhibitors combined with chemotherapy did not significantly increase the incidence of all grades of adverse events (Relative Risk=0.99, p=0.788) or the incidence of serious adverse events (RR=0.99, p=0.788) compared to chemotherapy alone. Conclusion: PD-1 inhibitors demonstrate outstanding efficacy in the treatment of patients with ARMCC. Patients with SCC may benefit more from treatments including PD-1 inhibitors in combination with other anti-tumor drugs, and PD-L1 CPS ≥1 can be considered a favorable indicator of immune therapy response. Importantly, the use of PD-1 inhibitor monotherapy or PD-1 inhibitors in combination with chemotherapy did not lead to an increased incidence of AEs compared with chemotherapy alone, indicting safety during treatment. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42023457945).

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsLung NeoplasmsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsB7-H1 AntigenFemaleHumansImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsProgrammed Cell Death 1 ReceptorAntineoplastic AgentsB7-H1 AntigenImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsProgrammed Cell Death 1 Receptoradverse eventscervical cancercombinationobjective response rateprogrammed cell death protein-1

Identifiers

PMID38327524
PMCPMC10847356
OpenAlexW4391172892

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.